AI Regulation Tracker / Policy signal
Nepal's judiciary moves to keep AI out of writing court judgments
Nepal's Supreme Court has endorsed a Judiciary Information and Communication Technology Policy 2026. According to the Chief Registrar, as reported by the Kathmandu Post, it lets courts use AI for research and drafting but bars it from writing judgments, writ petitions or judicial notes. This is a signal, not a statute.
Court systems around the world are working out where AI belongs in the business of judging, and most are landing in the same place: helpful for the work around a decision, off-limits for the decision itself. Nepal's judiciary has now signaled the same line. According to reporting in the Kathmandu Post, the Supreme Court endorsed a Judiciary Information and Communication Technology Policy 2026 in a full-court meeting, and the Chief Registrar, Bimal Paudel, laid out what it allows and what it forbids.
What the Chief Registrar says the policy does
The framing is worth stating carefully, because everything here rests on one on-record account rather than on the policy text. As the Kathmandu Post reported it, the Chief Registrar described a policy that embraces AI for legal research, for study, and for drafting work that does not decide anything, and that pairs this with a commitment to train judges and court staff on the tools. The boundary sits at judicial decision-making. In the Chief Registrar's words, quoted by the paper: "AI cannot be used for tasks that require human judgment, such as writing court decisions, writ petitions or judicial notes."
Read that as a line drawn around the act of judging, not around technology in general. The reported policy is permissive on the assistive side and firm on the decisional side. That is the shape of it as the Chief Registrar characterized it, and it is the shape a reader should hold loosely until the provisions themselves are public.
Why we are attributing every claim here
We did not open the policy document. What is on the record is the Chief Registrar's description of it, carried by the Kathmandu Post. So we are not stating, in our own voice, that the policy bars AI from writing judgments as a verified provision. We are reporting that the Chief Registrar says it does, and that the paper reported him saying so. There are no provision numbers to cite and no effective date to quote, because the primary reporting does not establish them. If you need the operative detail, the next step is the policy text itself once the judiciary publishes it.
Why a US professional should track this
The direct effect is inside Nepal, but the pattern is the point. This is another national judiciary putting a governance line in writing: AI for research and drafting, humans for the judgment. Anyone building or buying legal-AI tools is watching these lines accumulate, because they define where an assistive product is welcome and where it becomes a liability. Nepal joins a growing set of court systems across the Asia-Pacific region signaling the same split, and each one is a data point on where the norm is settling.
Questions professionals are asking
Has Nepal banned AI in its courts?
No. According to the Chief Registrar, as reported by the Kathmandu Post, the Judiciary ICT Policy 2026 welcomes AI for legal research, study and non-decisional drafting. What it bars, on that account, is using AI to write judgments, writ petitions or judicial notes, the tasks the judiciary treats as requiring human judgment.
Is this a law or a statute?
No. This is an internal judiciary policy endorsed by Nepal's Supreme Court, not legislation passed by a parliament. We classify it as a signal about how one court system intends to govern AI use, not as a binding statute.
How solid is the reporting?
The substance comes from Chief Registrar Bimal Paudel's on-record characterization, carried by the Kathmandu Post. We have not reviewed the policy text, so the details here should be treated as an attributed account rather than a verified reading of the provisions.
RELATED BRIEFINGS
Browse the full AI Regulation News tracker
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.